When the Evidence Disappears: The Accountability Gap in the Preservation of Digital Evidence in Custodial Violence Cases in India

Custodial violence is among the hardest forms of State abuse to investigate and prosecute, since the person alleging violence is often placed at a considerable evidentiary disadvantage. While in custody, the individual is under the State's control, and the State may at the same time control much of the evidence that could establish what took place. As CCTV cameras, audio-video recording, and other digital technologies become more common in police stations, there is potential to lessen this evidentiary imbalance. Yet the mere presence of digital surveillance does not automatically ensure accountability. CCTV cameras may be out of order, recordings may be overwritten automatically, storage systems may be insufficient, or relevant footage may fail to be preserved or produced even when judicial directions require it. This paper examines the accountability gap that results within the Indian legal framework governing digital evidence in cases of custodial violence. It analyses the constitutional safeguards against custodial violence, the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on CCTV surveillance, especially Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh, the evidentiary framework for electronic records under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, and the procedural framework under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023. It also considers the importance of Tomaso Bruno vs State of Uttar Pradesh and recent judicial proceedings involving CCTV footage that was non-functional or unavailable. The paper contends that although Indian law has developed substantial obligations regarding the creation and retention of digital evidence, it remains relatively fragmented on the precise moment when a preservation obligation arises, which authority is responsible for preservation, how digital evidence is independently verified, and what follows when it disappears. The paper proposes a preservation-based framework built around an identifiable preservation trigger, independent duplication of relevant footage, technical audit trails, and proportionate evidentiary and institutional consequences for failures to preserve.